Are The U.S. Legal Profession And Case Law Truly Antiquated?

Here’s something to consider, I offer. The law as practiced and enforced in the USA is antiquated! Why do I say that, especially since I studied law; was first in my class and awarded the Scholarly Award in Paralegal studies, which eventually changed my mind and determination about going back to law school?

I remember vividly that night sitting in a college classroom when the law professor made a statement which, literally, changed my opinion about U.S. law and justice. His commentary on the law prompted my unrestrained shock when I blurted out, “So that’s why Justice is blindfolded!” I went home from class that night to tell my late husband I decided I was not going to law school. I realized I could not go along with a premise which, in my opinion, proffered “To get along, one has to go along.”

Where’s true justice?

As we fast-forward into the 21st century, everything geopolitical and otherwise, especially acculturating memes in the United States seemingly deleting personal liberties, personifies and enforces my question, “Where’s true justice?”

In my opinion, we live in a climate of corporate take-over of individuals’ rights. Examples: mandatory Big Pharma vaccines where real informed consent and the right to self-determination are denied and made illegal by state laws, often at the behest of Big Pharma lobbying; mandatory AMI Smart Meters, which spy on households plus emit toxic radiation waves traveling over electrical wiring in the walls of every house retrofitted which, unfortunately, had its radiation-free-and-safe analog meter taken away, most times without consumers’ knowledge and/or consent; genetically modified ‘phoods’ literally force-fed to consumers without proper identification and/or labeling due to FDA mandate and probable input from Monsanto’s former chief lobbyist Michael Taylor, now FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine who is NOT a veterinarian nor medical doctor—a former corporate attorney; chemtrails with their horrendous toxins sprayed daily in the skies above our heads treating us like lab rats in an experiment we never signed up for. Nuremberg Laws are overlooked and deliberately not enforced, often due to ‘legal loopholes’ and/or corporate trade secrets. There are many more examples, but I think readers get the idea: “Where’s true justice?”

Nonetheless, I think I can answer that “justice” question after all these years.

The denial of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, including individual state Constitutional rights, may be—and probably is—the only answer to that gnawing question. Such corporate-sponsored actions are being perpetrated by vested interests who want to lord over the masses they wish to control legally, morally and medically!

Furthermore, there’s scuttlebutt George Soros, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential candidate-backer, wants to do away with, and replace, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights by 2020!

If U.S. citizens allow that to happen—God forbid, then U.S. citizens deserve what happens to us, along with the horrors of ‘governance’ that go with a “plutocracy” run by, and at the whims of, the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Bushes, Cheney, Clintons, Soros, Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Trump, and other ‘oligarchs’ secretly positioned within Skull and Bones and Bohemian Grove memberships. Kim Jong-Un on a different wavelength, should we be asking? Anyone of any political-stripe who wants to deny basic human rights or implement draconian mandates on fellow citizens has to be questioned and neutralized for the common good, I offer.

The law, in my opinion, is to blame because it operates differently than science, which has been bastardized, too, in many respects and seeks to implement its own fiefdom rule, e.g., Transhumanism and Artificial Intelligence where computers will be placed into human brains and citizens will be chipped. How de-humanizing can it get?

The law is a different beast. The American legal system utilizes the adversarial system: Both sides in a case present arguments as to the merits of their positions before the entity that will be settling the matter (the trier-of-fact such as a judge or jury).

Past decisions, known as precedent, are the foundation of this process; as science leans forward, the law leans backward. Of course this doesn’t mean the law is backward. As a philosophy, the law places a different measure and meaning on precedent than does science. To oversimplify, science builds on prior knowledge, while the courts defer to it. [CJF emphasis]

“The law leans backward!” What an appropriate response to where is justice? Case law may be the system and legal meme keeping Justice blindfolded, in my opinion, because “the courts defer to it”—ouch!

Each legal problem and situation brings a set of different dynamics before the courts and principles of law, which lawyers cavalierly massage around to try to fit into established precedent case law in order to win their cases.

One perfect example, in my opinion, is the 1905 vaccine case law Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which is so outdated, it truly is pathetic. We are living in 2017 while vested interests, including federal and state health agencies manipulated by pseudoscience and corporate lobbyists and lawyers, hang their legal hats on that case. “Where’s justice?” Furthermore, shouldn’t present day anti-vaxxers be held to Jacobson’s ruling: fined only $5 as was Pastor Jacobson, if the courts defer to case law?

However, lawyers parse case law and judges even may ‘manipulate’ it to the legal benefits of vested interests, I contend, and that’s a true denial of justice. Let’s take off Justice’s blindfold and allow her to become a liberated Justice, especially since women have been demanding their rights for too long.

Regarding updating the law and not the U.S. Constitution

Many Constitutional reform advocates, e.g., former President Obama and George Soros in particular, seek that route as it is the ultimate prize to take away from a country based upon individual’s rights. James Madison valiantly fought to incorporate the Bill of Rights, which have been expanded from the original ten Madison was able to include in founding documents.

Allowing the U.S. Constitution to be voted down, changed, or deleted as the basic law of the land would negate the very purpose and founding of the original 13 colonies, the Revolutionary War of Independence, and all the Conventional Congresses held in colonial times. Our Founding Forefathers wanted no parts of a “kingship” or one-man-rule governance or what I’d call “vested interest” domination for the newly found republic. Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

That is the ultimate challenge: Keeping the United States of America a democratic republic and not allowing it to become a North Korea or other fascist dictatorship lorded over by the new world order cabal or corporate totalitarianism.

We are at the crossroads of history once again; what fork in the road will we take? Will it be true, real freedom or subjugation under a Gestapo-like, corporate autocracy?

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

14 Commentson "Are The U.S. Legal Profession And Case Law Truly Antiquated?"

There are so many issues of immediate nature facing humans that the confusion of priorites is evident. The Heglian problem, reaction, solution massaging of our nation is part of the agenda of nefarious, secret and not so secret groups in an attempt of world control.

Anendas 21 and 2030 are attacking water and land use and rights. Wilderness areas are getting more restrictions on use, GMO use, and on and on.

You kill a snake at the head. End the Fed. No more lobbyists in DC. Forgive all debt. Reduce the government to 1/3 of what it is. Legalize all use of pot to end asset forfiture by criminal police who use that as excuses for robbery and murder. Regulate pharmaseutical pricing.

Excellent point. Prioritization is one of the most important things Americans should be deciding on, but perceived authority keeps us busy and at each others throats with much to do of nothing as to keep us from even seeing this, let alone uniting and formulating an effective plan.
Even when doing everyday chores there is a process of mental triage to set priorities.
If the kitchen is a total mess, much like the state of the nation right now, we can allow it to completely overcome us, or, start on the worse part first and chip away at it.
Unfortunately we are discouraged right now because there is so much wrong with so many things we feel it is impossible. If we united on one thing and put effort into it we would see our own power and it would give us the confidence to do more.

Even the longest journey begins with just one step.

PS Understanding your perception ( Joe Blow) this is meant more for other readers, otherwise I would be preaching to the choir.

“Unfortunately we are discouraged right now because there is so much wrong with so many things we feel it is impossible. If we united on one thing and put effort into it we would see our own power and it would give us the confidence to do more.”

My thinking as well. That is the strength of the sociopathic controllers, to keep us divided. Just one monster shove by us on chemtrails, vaccinations, anything.

“Even the longest journey begins with just one step.”

My shoes are worn thin friend, but I keep on moving.

“PS Understanding your perception ( Joe Blow) this is meant more for other readers, otherwise I would be preaching to the choir.”

Thanks, so many get caught up in their emotions they forget with whom thet are talking. I see us all as equals but like in an army, everyone has different “jobs” to do and it is good once in awhile to get refreshed.

Justice blindfolded!?! Not since 1787 when the constitutional framers replaced Yahweh’s immutable/unchanging moral law for their own capricious man-made Enlightenment and Masonic traditions:

“…’…their judgment [justice, NASB] and their dignity shall proceed of themselves. …imputing this his power unto his god.’ (Habakkuk 1:7, 11)

“The New American Standard Bible renders verse 7 more accurately: ‘their justice and authority originate with themselves.’ The Preamble declares that ‘WE THE PEOPLE,’ for various reasons, do ‘ordain and establish this constitution….’….

“According to Habakkuk, not only did the Chaldeans’ authority originate with themselves, but so did their justice. And so does the justice of WE THE PEOPLE: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice….” What an audacious assertion. Only Yahweh is just, and only He can establish justice:

‘Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy [Yahweh’s] throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.’ (Psalm 89:14)….’

“Anytime autonomous man attempts to establish justice outside Yahweh’s moral laws, the result is always injustice. In Isaiah 5:20, this transposition is depicted as calling good evil and evil good. The word “autonomous” comes from two Greek words: ‘auto’ meaning self and ‘nomos’ meaning law. The word, which
literally means “self-law,” is just another way of describing humanism and, in this instance, constitutionalism…..”

Today’s injustices are merely the inherent consequences of the ever-intensifying whirlwind today’s America is reaping as a result of the wind sown by the 18th-century founding fathers:

“[B]ecause they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law … they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind….” (Hosea 8:1, 7)

For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs, the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 3.

Then, find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

First is that the US Constitution is a compact between the states, BUT it is the CONTRACT that ALL who serve within our governments – state and federal – are under, are Oath bound to, and are required to follow. This contract that they are bound to is lawfully strengthened by an Oath that makes it the PERSONAL responsibility of ALL who serve to be accountable for their actions while serving. That they carry out the duties found in writing within the US Constitution or those that are in Pursuance thereof it, yet still under the delegated authority of the branch or office within a branch.

Contract law is firm, existed for 100’s of years, and a lawful binding agreement. The US Constitution gives each branch constitutional remedy to keep the other branches in line with the duties delegated to them, but it no where states that those are the ONLY ways those who serve within our governments can be removed (by the other branches). So who created that contract?

“What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” Van Horne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304.

“A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.

“The basic purpose of a written constitution has a two-fold aspect, first securing [not granting] to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined spheres.” Du Pont v. Du Pont, 85 A 724.

“The constitution of a state is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon the temper of the times, not to rise and fall with the tide of events. Notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife and storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves.” Vanhorne v. Dorrance, supra.

So who created the states – each their own individual nation? The people did. Who created the general (federal) government, and why was it created? The states created it to be the representative of all the states in dealing with foreign affairs.

“In a nutshell, our Constitution authorizes the federal government to handle the following objects for the Country at Large:
— Military defense, international commerce & relations;
— Control immigration & naturalization of new citizens;
— Domestically, to create a uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
— With some of the amendments, secure certain civil rights.

As stated in the 10th Amendment, ALL OTHER POWERS ARE RESERVED by the States OR THE PEOPLE….” Publius Huldah

The Declaration of Independence says that the American colonies of Great Britain had become “free and independent states”, separate states. The U.S. Constitution refers constantly to the states, but never to a “nation”; and this is a fact that all should consider.

Add to this that U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of this land. Then consider that the only crimes assigned to the federal government in the Constitution for law enforcement purposes are Treason, Piracy,
Counterfeiting, and International law violations. All other law enforcement matters are the purview of the individual states, or the people (Tenth Amendment).

So what are those “laws” that the author is speaking of? They are NOT Law, they are *”Color of Law”, pretend law. They are color of law because they deviate from the delegated authority, they are fake laws enforced by constitutionally-required-to be-Oath bound enforcers who are IGNORANT OF THE SUPREME CONTRACT THAT THEY ARE BOUND TO, and instead serve with and enforce color of law against the people.

Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.
To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

To stop ignorance of our Constitutional Republic is easy, read a VERY short document called the US Constitution. To be able to be an informed US citizen and juror, one should also read their own state’s Constitution since it is both the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution that is our government. The people who SERVE WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENTS are NOT “the” government, we have no rulers. They are put into place – elected, hired, contracted, etc – to carry out the written duties found within those documents – and nothing else.

St. George Tucker: “The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it – the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties.
It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge of the extent of his own powers, without reference to his constituent?” (Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in his edition of ‘Blackstone’s
Commentaries On The Law’ (1803))

One must understand that when those that serve within our governments deviate from the written duties of their contract, they no longer meet the requirements of the office. Also understand that their authority is limited to what is written, and by what it requires of them. Dr. Vieira says it best here.

Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides… The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

… the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”

What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not
have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.” (end Dr. Vieira quote)

Hamilton, Federalist 33: “But it will not follow from this doctrine that laws passed by Congress are the Supreme law of the land] that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

So when the US Constitution says that All legislation must be created by those that serve within the Senate and the House of Representatives, that is exactly what it means. No agency, no assistant, no other branch, no foreign government can create any Law that is binding on the American people. But can they make “law” (color of law) that is enforced? Sure, they do so all the time, but the ONLY reason that they are enforced is that instead of keeping their Oath to support and defend the US Constitution before anything else like orders from superiors or the duty of the position they occupy by saying “No, that is unLawful here or an unLawful order”; they instead commit a *terrorist act against the American people by carrying out that unLawful order.

*28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

So when the Congress does NOT declare war as is constitutionally required those that serve within the US Military is supposed to KEEP their Oath and refuse to invade or attack other nations. They also do not know the document(s) that is our government and do not KEEP the constitutionally required Oath. The acts they commit by “just following orders” and “just doing their jobs” are working AGAINST our legitimate government, not “defending our nation”.

James Madison: “The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature … the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”

George Washington: “The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and
authorized such a measure.”

James Madison: “In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

James Madison: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few… The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of
fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

It is important to know that those that serve within the federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution. That when those who are representatives make any type of agreement with foreign nations or entities it MUST be in Pursuance of the US Constitution, and within the authority listed for the branch or office within a branch that has that delegated authority. It it does not, then that “agreement”/treaty/etc is NOT Lawfully binding on the American people or on the USA.

Take foreign aid, and foreign allies for example –

George Washington: “It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

Thomas Jefferson: “I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war.“

John Quincy Adams: “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume
the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.”

Cal,
Thank you for a well-written, informative comment. Impressive! Your knowledge of Our Constitution is a refreshing change from the obfuscation/prevarications and bovine scatology on other blogs I have stumbled upon.

If you had stayed in law school a little longer you would have discovered that all American law is “statutory” law, a jurisdiction that didn’t exist 50 years ago, at least not in the national or state constitutions. It is the mixing of Admiralty and equity. It is the law merchant only with compelled performance. Not only that, it is directed at legal fictions. Your ALL CAPS NAME that appear on any document having to do with just about anything. The charges are not brought against you, but against THE NAME which is just a cetui que vie trust number, for which you have unknowingly pledged you labor as surety. The courts are not about guilt or innocence or who has been harmed, they are simply about who will pay whom for what statutory offense. In other words, the law in America is nothing more than a giant extortion racket.

We are Not a “democratic republic” as Catherine Frompovich has stated above. A “democratic” anything is simply “mob rule.” But, we Are a “republic”, at least for the time being. All members of our republic that willingly submit to The Supreme Law of The Land, e.g., The US Constitution, should by rights be “republicans”! All resisters thereby should be labeled as something else. Socialist comes to mind.

There is an ongoing “project” known as the Convention of States, per Article V, Section 2 of the US Constitution. It’s aim is, according to the wording so specified in the Article, to form a Convention of two thirds of the “several States”; propose “Ammendments” which will become valid parts of the Constitution when ratified by three fouths of the “several States…”